nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New Household Tax - Boycott

bkeano

Hi all Boardies

Can we all please make a stance here and get our non boardies to do the same. Enough is Enough We should not pay this new household Tax. Its the same as the Poll tax in the UK. I am an normal Joe Soap with 2 kids. I cant pay any more Taxes. I can afford it as it is. I am lucky to have my Job.

We need to mount a serious objection here and nationwide.

thanks
Brian

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Good loser

Dirk Gently wrote: »

They also said if there was any barrier with data protection they would amend the data protection legislation to allow government access to utility companies to gather information.

This is an interesting game of bluff, if nothing else. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when 80% of households don't register by march 31. It would be a brave government that "goes after" the bulk of households in the country.

I suspect they'll be forced to simply raise income taxes and abandon the household charge in its current form unless there is a major shift in registrations in the next 2 weeks.

They could also increase car tax by €100 per car!! There would be NO objections to that I'm sure??

Dirk Gently

They also said if there was any barrier with data protection they would amend the data protection legislation to allow government access to utility companies to gather information.

This is an interesting game of bluff, if nothing else. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when 80% of households don't register by march 31. It would be a brave government that "goes after" the bulk of households in the country.

I suspect they'll be forced to simply raise income taxes and abandon the household charge in its current form unless there is a major shift in registrations in the next 2 weeks.

Mr.Micro

Hoffmans wrote: »

hoagey spin on 9news , no extension to house hold charge! , did anyone a$k for one?
seems a cry of desperation , under 16% take up on his charge,
& how many of that 16% would be exempted properties anyway..

I would say its tough talk.

Hoffmans

hoagey spin on 9news , no extension to house hold charge! , did anyone a$k for one?
seems a cry of desperation , under 16% take up on his charge,
& how many of that 16% would be exempted properties anyway..

AlekSmart

murphaph wrote: »

Your point is correct but there are different ways of levying it on the actual users of the service (the tenants). In Germany (for example) I pay property tax to the city of Berlin as a property owner. I am legally entitled to pass this cost on in full to tenants (I don't have any here, it's our home) in full however, so if the city increases property taxes I can simply increase the rent immediately as these city levied taxes ARE actually ringfenced for services like water and sanitation (rent increases are legally controlled in Germany-a landlord cannot arbitrarily increase rents).

In the UK the actual tenant is liable for Council Tax, rather than involving the landlord at all. I prefer the UK way as it is not unknown for tenants to do a bunk owing back rent, especially in Ireland where the law is a complete mess and people often can't even be found (no national ID cards and registration of current address etc.) when the leg it leaving significant debts behind them.

Lordy Lordy,reading the above post,and its account of what the rest of the civilized world,finds to be a perfectly acceptable and sustainable method of regulating property occupation,makes me feel queasy.

Our national phsyche remains firmly rooted in some quasi-religious attachment to owning our own property.

This entitlement to Ownership is not bad of itself,BUT is positively lethal if its profferred as something which everybody has an entitlement to on a "Free at Point of Use" basis.

Successive Irish Governments,since the abolition of Domestic Rates in 1978,have actively stoked the flames of depression by sleight-of-hand in this respect.

There is a very informative paper here on the general topic...

http://www.psai.ie/conferences/papers2006/healy.pdf

It's worth noting that the Legal Obligation to pay Domestic Rates continues to exist,with the only difference being the then Governments decision to transfer that liability to the Central Exchequer rather than the individual property owner.

It is worth a debate,I feel,as to whether or not it would be
more equitable to simply re-introduce Domestic rates,probably by Statutory Instrument,and thus reactivate a collection system which has continued to exist in a state of readiness for over 3 decades.

As far as I'm aware,the various Local Authorities continue to maintain fully functional Rates Departments with up to date valuations still available for all properties in their areas.

murphaph

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Renters should also pay a tax if we are going to be following the rest of Europe. They also avail of the LA services. And if people did not buy for investment where exactly would these people who rent live? Social housing?

Your point is correct but there are different ways of levying it on the actual users of the service (the tenants). In Germany (for example) I pay property tax to the city of Berlin as a property owner. I am legally entitled to pass this cost on in full to tenants (I don't have any here, it's our home) in full however, so if the city increases property taxes I can simply increase the rent immediately as these city levied taxes ARE actually ringfenced for services like water and sanitation (rent increases are legally controlled in Germany-a landlord cannot arbitrarily increase rents).

In the UK the actual tenant is liable for Council Tax, rather than involving the landlord at all. I prefer the UK way as it is not unknown for tenants to do a bunk owing back rent, especially in Ireland where the law is a complete mess and people often can't even be found (no national ID cards and registration of current address etc.) when the leg it leaving significant debts behind them.

Good loser

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Renters should also pay a tax if we are going to be following the rest of Europe. They also avail of the LA services. And if people did not buy for investment where exactly would these people who rent live? Social housing?

I agree.

Also the €200 charge on second houses should be abolished.

Bullseye1

Renters should also pay a tax if we are going to be following the rest of Europe. They also avail of the LA services. And if people did not buy for investment where exactly would these people who rent live? Social housing?

Good loser

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would'nt be too confident of the "hordes" bit,Mikom.

The nature of these things is a first Court Appearance followed by various later dates for legal arguement etc.

Whilst the Media will doubtless focus on that headline date,once the adjournments and alternative dates start then the "hordes" will melt swiftly away.

Like it or not,this Household Charge is merely pulling us into line with the rest of Europe/World,which entails those owning property actually paying an ongoing significant amount for that privilege......Easiest way around it...."Don't buy Property"

Well said.

The idea of a property (house) tax is that people who own a house are better able to pay tax than those that don't i.e. they are wealthier. It is a wealth tax.

Similarly those who own a car pay car tax - roughly proportionate to value.

Those with a TV can afford to pay better than those that don't.

Those who can travel abroad can afford to pay airport tax.

When first introduced rates were mostly paid by landlords and they were expended on building and maintaining workhouses for the poor of the localities.

AlekSmart

mikom wrote: »

Gonna be hard to get into those courts when the "don't register, don't pay" hordes clog up the outside protesting.
Will make for good tv and newspaper frontpages as well.

I would'nt be too confident of the "hordes" bit,Mikom.

The nature of these things is a first Court Appearance followed by various later dates for legal arguement etc.

Whilst the Media will doubtless focus on that headline date,once the adjournments and alternative dates start then the "hordes" will melt swiftly away.

Like it or not,this Household Charge is merely pulling us into line with the rest of Europe/World,which entails those owning property actually paying an ongoing significant amount for that privilege......Easiest way around it...."Don't buy Property"

K-9

Manach wrote: »

From a historical perspective, there are echos of the Land League struggle.

I'd be slow in evoking emotional ties to land as some type of advantage of a political campaign in 2012.

After all, part of the appeal of the bubble was emotional ties to land and the plot, it isn't necessarily a good thing. A house is bricks and mortar, land a piece of turf, people should never forget that, they did during the bubble and before it. Many the brother shot or disowned over land.

Evoking the Land League struggle is doing a huge disservice to Davitt and evictions. It's hysteria and an appeal to emotion, considering most households are now privately owned, the Irish are now the landlords, whether it be privately or banks.

long range shooter

Manach wrote: »

From a historical perspective, there are echos of the Land League struggle.
When the Irish people decided that it was unjust that agents of a foreign power enforce the a payment level on land. There were nay-sayers then as well, saying that people power would have no effect on the State. History deemed otherwise.

And yes.without the EU what would Ireland have been today???

Manach

From a historical perspective, there are echos of the Land League struggle.
When the Irish people decided that it was unjust that agents of a foreign power enforce the a payment level on land. There were nay-sayers then as well, saying that people power would have no effect on the State. History deemed otherwise.

mikom

Mr.Micro wrote: »

They wont have to bring 1 million people to court. The body given the task of getting the fee will single out individuals in the herd of "will not pay", and take them to court. Once the herd sees the court actions on TV and in the press, that the Government mean business, the rest of the herd will panic when they get demands with their name on it, ...then they will pay. Human nature, brave in a crowd, but not so as individuals.

Gonna be hard to get into those courts when the "don't register, don't pay" hordes clog up the outside protesting.
Will make for good tv and newspaper frontpages as well.

Mr.Micro

DB21 wrote: »

What are they going to do? Bring ~1 million people to court? Doubt it.

They wont have to bring 1 million people to court. The body given the task of getting the fee will single out individuals in the herd of "will not pay", and take them to court. Once the herd sees the court actions on TV and in the press, that the Government mean business, the rest of the herd will panic when they get demands with their name on it, ...then they will pay. Human nature, brave in a crowd, but not so as individuals.

edanto

For me, while there are plenty of things wrong with this government, and plenty of money wasted, I still reluctantly support the property tax and have already paid it.

I fully expect it to increase about five or ten fold in the next decade, it simply has to do that to generate a reasonable amount of income, to compare in any way to the amounts that were brought in from stamp duty, without the pro-bubble effects of a transaction based tax.

But do we encourage people not to pay income tax if they disagree with the government, or not to pay VAT on purchases if they think a recent law is unfair? No, 'course we don't. I just fundamentally don't understand the 'boycott the household tax' campaign. I've read through all this thread, and all the websites about it - and I still can't find out what the justification is for not paying this tax compared with all the other taxes?

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

we're talking about cushioning the tax system against recessionary shocks by ensuring that it's not dependent on one overheated segment of the economy.

Who's we? I would suggest that "we" have legitimate concerns about the introduction of a new tax head which can be gradually used for maintaining expenditure, particularly in light of the provisions of the anticipated fiscal treaty, where such stable sources for revenue would be likely to prove highly attractive do thrift-averse governments (as governments are wont to be) in narrowing the deficit without having to make adult choices.

"We" should also be discussing the fact that there is strong evidence to suggest that raising household taxes leads to less stable economic outlook than focusing on cutting back on expenditure, particularly in relation to current spending over the crisis programme, spending which sadly is being rather well preserved.

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

That's fine. I think the empirical, objective evidence is against you and the idea of raising new taxes at this stage in a recession.

The alternative to both raising taxes and cutting expenditure is to cut expenditure even more deeply. If all the TDs who are bleating about new taxes were also demanding swingeing cuts to public services, they might have some measure of credibility.

The other consideration, which you seem to be eliding from my responses, is that our tax base was eroded to an unsustainably narrow point over several terms of government vote-buying. We're not just talking about raising taxes as a knee-jerk revenue-gathering exercise (although there's an element of that), we're talking about cushioning the tax system against recessionary shocks by ensuring that it's not dependent on one overheated segment of the economy.

Then again, it really depends on what one's core objectives are. Some people clearly aspire to high expenditure economies, and in that sense their desire for increasing taxes is in this sense (and perhaps this sense alone) legitimate.

I aspire to a situation where our revenue from taxes is sufficient to cover our public spending. Contrary to what you keep trying to suggest, I am not opposed to cutting expenditure; the problem is that however vocal the lobby against new taxes, the lobby against cutting anything is positively hysterical.

oscarBravo

RichardAnd wrote: »

Once again, no I didn't. I simply mentioned motor tax, I said nothing about my own views upon it.

Can you clarify, then: do you have moral objections to paying motor tax on a car that you wholly own?

If I'd said that, then you could accuse me of hyperbole.

You were guilty of hyperbole anyway, because the example you offered was unrealistic.

Just because you think a law is a good thing does not mean everyone will agree with you and considering that many people here don't agree with this law, I would say that would amounts to a solid reason for those TDs to behave as they have.

There are a lot of things that many people here would disagree with, but that doesn't make it any less repugnant for a TD who shares their views to encourage them to break the law.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not opposed to the idea of broadening the tax base...

That's fine. I think the empirical, objective evidence is against you and the idea of raising new taxes at this stage in a recession.

Then again, it really depends on what one's core objectives are. Some people clearly aspire to high expenditure economies, and in that sense their desire for increasing taxes is in this sense (and perhaps this sense alone) legitimate.

RichardAnd

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're being logically inconsistent. You've pointed out that motor tax isn't ringfenced for road maintenance, but don't mind paying motor tax because you use your car on publicly maintained roads. You have a problem with paying a property tax on a house that benefits from public services, because the property tax isn't ringfenced. It doesn't add for me, I'm afraid.

Once again, no I didn't. I simply mentioned motor tax, I said nothing about my own views upon it.

Why stop there? Why not ask whether TDs should resist a law forcing people to murder their firstborn?

If I'd said that, then you could accuse me of hyperbole.

There's no need for the hyperbole. If a TD called on business owners to fiddle their VAT returns, most people would demand their head on a plate for encouraging tax evasion. But when TDs call on people not to pay a tax that they're required by law to pay - in other words, when they tell people to break the law by evading tax - they're principled heroes.

Sorry, but no. An elected representative has an obligation to be a model citizen in most civilised countries. That's why, in those civilised countries, when an elected representative is found to have done something wrong, he is obliged to relinquish his seat. Only in this country do we not only tolerate but applaud elected representatives who believe that obeying the law is optional. I have no problem with questioning the actions of government. I have a major problem with telling people to disobey the perfectly reasonable laws enacted by the democratically elected government of the people.

Let's cut through the bull, here. This isn't Syria; if we don't like the government we can elect another one. This tax isn't exorbitant; it's two euros a week. Other countries have property taxes, so the idea that a tax on property is inherently wrong just doesn't bear scrutiny.

I'm quite sure that recalcitrance, as you seem to believe this is, is lauded in more than one country in the world but that's another issue. Just because you think a law is a good thing does not mean everyone will agree with you and considering that many people here don't agree with this law, I would say that would amounts to a solid reason for those TDs to behave as they have.

oscarBravo

later12 wrote: »

Fortunately, that's really not your decision to make.

No, it's an opinion. I think that a TD who encourages people to drive while drunk, or to shoplift, or to break into someone's house - in short, to break the law - is unfit to hold office.

An elected representative is a member of the legislature, one of the branches of government. A member of the opposition is welcome to disagree with government policy; to express revulsion at the implementation of those policies; to pledge to reverse those policies if voted into office. But for a member of a branch of government to encourage people to disobey the laws of the land - that's just not acceptable, in my view.

Some people have some very particular moral and philosophical outlooks that causes them to favour the implementation of strong, inelastic taxes and I guess that is your perogative.

You're falling into the all-too-easy trap of assuming that I'm strongly in favour of this tax in its present form. On the contrary, I'm not opposed to the concept of a property tax, which a lot of people seem to be. I'm not opposed to the idea of broadening the tax base, which a lot of people seem to be. I'm also not in favour of widespread tax evasion, which a lot of people seem to be.

oscarBravo

RichardAnd wrote: »

Tax is charged on a car because whilst you own it, you drive it on publicly maintained roads. The logic of the household tax is that houses depend on certain services but if you take a look at my reply to Welease, you'll see what I think of that.

You're being logically inconsistent. You've pointed out that motor tax isn't ringfenced for road maintenance, but don't mind paying motor tax because you use your car on publicly maintained roads. You have a problem with paying a property tax on a house that benefits from public services, because the property tax isn't ringfenced. It doesn't add for me, I'm afraid.

That's not quite what I said. I said that I don't believe a government should be given more money until they have proven that they can manage what is currently available. If every cent collected was used properly and a deficit remained, then it would be time to look at raising taxes. Currently, given the level of waste in the public finances, I think more tax should be put off until certain areas of waste are addressed.

I wish we had the luxury of borrowing obscene amounts of money and stacking our national debt to ever more unsustainable levels until everyone's pet concerns about government spending were addressed, but we don't.

One of the single biggest obstacles to fixing our structural deficit is the Croke Park Agreement. I strongly believe it should be torn up and the public service unions served with a dose of cold hard reality - but I'm not arguing against necessary revenue increases in the meantime.

I don't, nor did I say that I do. And also, that's another issue with the household charge. I've heard that it is to pay for local services and I have also heard that it is to provide a broad tax base that is more stable than income tax. There seems to be confusion as to what this tax is truly intended for and I don't like confusion, I like clear and honest information that describes where my taxes are to be spent.

I'd like that too, but the fact that the government is forced by the nature of our political system to sugarcoat things instead of coming right out and explaining that we can no longer afford the luxury of being the only western nation without a property tax still isn't a good enough reason for tax evasion.

This is an interesting point. Consider this, a tax is introduced that requires you to pay an extortionate amount of money to the state within a narrow time-frame, let's say ten thousand euros. Now if that passed through the dail it would be a law in the same sense that the household charge is a law so if TDs called for resistance, would they be wrong for doing so?

Why stop there? Why not ask whether TDs should resist a law forcing people to murder their firstborn?

There's no need for the hyperbole. If a TD called on business owners to fiddle their VAT returns, most people would demand their head on a plate for encouraging tax evasion. But when TDs call on people not to pay a tax that they're required by law to pay - in other words, when they tell people to break the law by evading tax - they're principled heroes.

Sorry, but no. An elected representative has an obligation to be a model citizen in most civilised countries. That's why, in those civilised countries, when an elected representative is found to have done something wrong, he is obliged to relinquish his seat. Only in this country do we not only tolerate but applaud elected representatives who believe that obeying the law is optional.

Surely you would rather have a TD in place that would stand by what he/she believes is morally right and in the best interests of the state as opposed to someone that supports a law simply because it exists? History has proven that when people stop questioning the actions of a government, ill tidings are abound. If something is passed into law that is wrong in the eyes of many then they have every right to resist because that is the essence of democracy.

I have no problem with questioning the actions of government. I have a major problem with telling people to disobey the perfectly reasonable laws enacted by the democratically elected government of the people.

Let's cut through the bull, here. This isn't Syria; if we don't like the government we can elect another one. This tax isn't exorbitant; it's two euros a week. Other countries have property taxes, so the idea that a tax on property is inherently wrong just doesn't bear scrutiny.

later12

oscarBravo wrote:

Those TDs who are urging people to commit tax evasion should be deeply ashamed of themselves; they are unworthy of elected office.

Fortunately, that's really not your decision to make.

Personally, I think that those people who are coming up with new ways of introducing taxes ought to be ashamed of themselves. If they are really interested in fiscal adjustment, then they should read the likes of the well referenced Alesina & Perotti paper on the success of fiscal adjustments from an objective ideological standpoint.

Of course, it really depends what one wants to achieve. Some people have some very particular moral and philosophical outlooks that causes them to favour the implementation of strong, inelastic taxes and I guess that is your perogative.

RichardAnd

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about putting a charge (such as motor tax) on a car that I own in every sense of the term?

Tax is charged on a car because whilst you own it, you drive it on publicly maintained roads. The logic of the household tax is that houses depend on certain services but if you take a look at my reply to Welease, you'll see what I think of that.

If your belief is that the entire budget deficit should be bridged solely through spending cuts and with not a single penny from new taxes, can you indicate which cuts you believe will achieve the necessary savings?

That's not quite what I said. I said that I don't believe a government should be given more money until they have proven that they can manage what is currently available. If every cent collected was used properly and a deficit remained, then it would be time to look at raising taxes. Currently, given the level of waste in the public finances, I think more tax should be put off until certain areas of waste are addressed.

Can you also explain why you think a sustainably broad tax base is a bad thing?

I don't, nor did I say that I do. And also, that's another issue with the household charge. I've heard that it is to pay for local services and I have also heard that it is to provide a broad tax base that is more stable than income tax. There seems to be confusion as to what this tax is truly intended for and I don't like confusion, I like clear and honest information that describes where my taxes are to be spent.

Those points aside, there's one compelling reason why people should pay this tax, and that is that they are obliged to do so by law. If you don't like the tax, vote for a government that will remove it. Those TDs who are urging people to commit tax evasion should be deeply ashamed of themselves; they are unworthy of elected office.

This is an interesting point. Consider this, a tax is introduced that requires you to pay an extortionate amount of money to the state within a narrow time-frame, let's say ten thousand euros. Now if that passed through the dail it would be a law in the same sense that the household charge is a law so if TDs called for resistance, would they be wrong for doing so?

Surely you would rather have a TD in place that would stand by what he/she believes is morally right and in the best interests of the state as opposed to someone that supports a law simply because it exists? History has proven that when people stop questioning the actions of a government, ill tidings are abound. If something is passed into law that is wrong in the eyes of many then they have every right to resist because that is the essence of democracy.

Welease

RichardAnd wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but to me, that's not what this tax does. All taxes go into one fund and as far as I know, there is no facility to "ringfence" any tax income so that it can only be used for a certain thing. This is also true for tax on petrol or motor tax. It's charged in relation to private transport but there is no guarantee that it's used to maintain roads.

Thus, with property tax, the government claims that it is for upkeep of local services yet there seems to be nothing set in stone that it will be used as such. If it were the case that all money collected by this tax was going into a special account with strict legal rulings preventing it being given to bank or spent otherwise, many people would likely feel different about the issue.

I'm sorry but respectfully your point makes little sense to me..

Are you saying that because it's not ringfenced, we should continue to borrow money from abroad to manage our defecit, and add to our debts by having to pay interest on that instead of having people pay a property tax?

Do you also object to all forms of income tax, VAT, motor taxation because those are not ring fenced also..

What would be the point of locking down our ability to provide funding in required areas due to ringfencing..Should we stop allowing people to claim welfare once that ringfenced amount is used up from income tax?
The country (and any business) needs to have flexibility to react to changing situations and move funding and resources to where they are needed most when they are needed most..

Even without banking issues.. this country does not collect anywhere near enough taxes to fund it's requirements.. Extra taxation/cuts are required.. period.. Property taxation (if the goverment follows its plan) is a method to direct funding to local authorities to allow them to provide the services that residents in the locale demand. Granted it's largely an accounting exercise as they will cut centralised funding, but so what.. it doesn;t get around the simple fact they we need to raise more revenue..

RichardAnd

Welease wrote: »

Would it be less of an issue if people looked at the tax for what is it.. A tax to continue to provide services to the locale where the house is?
People complain that they already paid a stamp duty etc.. but stamp duty doesn't and won't continue to pay for the installation and upkeep of roads, street lighting, libraries, municipal sewerage scheme's and all the other services that people expect and demand.

We can either add it to direct taxes or indirect taxes.. but either way we need to pay for these servers, and stop borrowing to fund them..

I understand what you're saying but to me, that's not what this tax does. All taxes go into one fund and as far as I know, there is no facility to "ringfence" any tax income so that it can only be used for a certain thing. This is also true for tax on petrol or motor tax. It's charged in relation to private transport but there is no guarantee that it's used to maintain roads.

Thus, with property tax, the government claims that it is for upkeep of local services yet there seems to be nothing set in stone that it will be used as such. If it were the case that all money collected by this tax was going into a special account with strict legal rulings preventing it being given to bank or spent otherwise, many people would likely feel different about the issue.

oscarBravo

RichardAnd wrote: »

There is nothing, as far as I know, that acts as a upper limit on the amount that this tax can levy upon our citizens.

What's the upper limit on income tax? VRT? Excise duties?

In my mind, if someone has paid for their house, they should own it in every sense of the term and putting a charge upon that property does not seem right to me.

What about putting a charge (such as motor tax) on a car that I own in every sense of the term?

I see no reason why the sate should be given more money by its people until it has demonstrated responsibly and care for what it already receives.

If your belief is that the entire budget deficit should be bridged solely through spending cuts and with not a single penny from new taxes, can you indicate which cuts you believe will achieve the necessary savings? Can you also explain why you think a sustainably broad tax base is a bad thing?

Those points aside, there's one compelling reason why people should pay this tax, and that is that they are obliged to do so by law. If you don't like the tax, vote for a government that will remove it. Those TDs who are urging people to commit tax evasion should be deeply ashamed of themselves; they are unworthy of elected office.

[Deleted User]

Welease wrote: »

People complain that they already paid a stamp duty etc.. but stamp duty doesn't and won't continue to pay for the installation and upkeep of roads, street lighting, libraries, municipal sewerage scheme's and all the other services that people expect and demand.

Exactly! I'm seeing plenty of incredibly...lets just say...myopic statements...from individuals along the lines of "I'll pay the household charge when the government gives me back my stamp duty!"

Well, news flash: Your stamp duty was spent on buying your vote through the boom years! It's gone now.

Welease

RichardAnd wrote: »

Next, I have a problem with the concept of a household charge in principal. I am aware that there is little difference between income tax and property tax but something about a charge upon a house does not sit well with me. In my mind, if someone has paid for their house, they should own it in every sense of the term and putting a charge upon that property does not seem right to me. Private property should be sacrosanct to a modern state because, as history demonstrate very well, little good comes about when the powers that be attempt to help themselves to what their citizens own. I am also aware there is an irony in socialist opposition to property tax but that's an aside.

Would it be less of an issue if people looked at the tax for what is it.. A tax to continue to provide services to the locale where the house is?
People complain that they already paid a stamp duty etc.. but stamp duty doesn't and won't continue to pay for the installation and upkeep of roads, street lighting, libraries, municipal sewerage scheme's and all the other services that people expect and demand.

We can either add it to direct taxes or indirect taxes.. but either way we need to pay for these servers, and stop borrowing to fund them..